Ms clift will have to be a bit more specific about which woman's group--to lump "women"--a very large group indeed into a group suggests to me that SOME women overlooked bad behavior. Clift is simply a talking head who is not relevant except among the chattering class.

@Madman, when "women's groups" support liberal male candidates over moderate female candidates then, yes, they are a de facto branch of the lunatic branch of the Democratic party and not "for" women at all.

If your only realistic choices are 'pretty bad' and 'freaking awful' it's not hypocrytical to go with 'pretty bad'.

It's just strange that they think the more personally repellant action of using individual women and leaving them to die belong under 'pretty bad' rather than 'freaking awful'. These particular groups seem to prioritize the collective over the individual, which probably tells you why they are liberals. No amount of individual bad behavior cannot be forgiven as long as it is somehow seems as promoting the collectivist good.

Liberal politics always came first for the so-called women's groups, which is why they are not really women's groups at all.

In general, voters support hypocrites.* The transgressions of those who support your causes can be forgiven as human weaknesses. Kennedy, however, is a special case: Unlike Clinton, Kennedy combined tomcatting with the cowardly inaction that allowed Mary Jo Kopechne to die.

And in a similar way, conservatives who weren't always happy with Bush's policies, could still respect him as a decent man with whom we disagree. Many liberals, to the contrary, could not believe he was a decent man, because they disagreed with his policies.

Yet Kennedy, how by many metrics was not what we would think of as a decent man (alhtough I'm sure he had his moments), can be absolved of all personal failings because he advanced the right sort of policies. Strange. Truly.

@Madman, when "women's groups" support liberal male candidates over moderate female candidates then, yes, they are a de facto branch of the lunatic branch of the Democratic party and not "for" women at all.

That's true only if you buy into the most primitive version of identity politics, namely "I'll vote for any candidate if that candidate is an X like me". Fortunately, women's groups (and others) don't go in for that, and instead vote for the person or party whose views and policies they believe will most benefit their group. And since liberal politicians have done a lot more policywise to help the interests of women, naturally, women's groups tend to support liberals.

a) pretty bad, but on your side on some issues and has a chance of making legislative progress for your side;

The point is that the priorities goes to politics rather than individual people. Individuals are harmed by a very bad person, but that is ok, because they support some policy I like.

I mean, would you support Ted Bundy because he had the right position on gun control? Of course not, because it would be absurd. But it seems like there are those who would, using such a utilitarian sense of morality.

Never mind that we're talking about the senator from freaking massachusettes, who probably would have been a dem regardless, and would have supported many of the exact same policies. So, why the need for Kennedy in particular? Well, that all goes back to Camelot doesn't it? I like Jackie O's sunglasses as much as the next gal, but does that really absolve her brother in law of all guilt?

1) Laura Bush, as a 17 year old, blew a stop sign and killed someone. There is no evidence that it was anything more than that - that she had been drinking, that there was gross criminal negligence involved, etc.2) Laura Bush has never been elected to anything in her life and therefore has never had to face these charges in front of voters.3) Ted Kennedy was a sitting US Senator and 27 years old when he drove a car off a bridge into Chappaquiddick Pond. He left the scene of the accident and did not report it to the police. His passenger was left trapped in the car as it sank in the pond - he did not inform authorities of this.4) All evidence points to the fact that Kennedy had likely been drinking at the party that he had attended.

LOL! Fat chance, Meade. Don't you know that it's just stupid sh*t and all in good fun? Except when it isn't. Then again, it usually isn't unless someone inconveniently points out it isn't, then it is, and whoever noticed it doesn't get it even though they do, but it is important to pretend that they don't, until they aren't looking.

But, in case you're seriously thinking the Bush accident is the same as Chappaquidick, help me out here. Are you saying that Laura Bush who was 17, had nothing to drink and ran a red light killing her then boyfriend who was in the car she hit but was never ticketed or charged should be treated with the same disdain as 37 year old Ted Kennedy's criminally negligent actions in causing the death and delay of reporting the death of Mary Jo Kopechne?

Or are you just upset that Ann is pointing out liberal association's blatant hypocrisy, which to any reasonable American citizen undercuts the messages and credibility of such groups?

Calling her an emasculating cunt was just a term of endearment? Interesting.

I was just busting her balls.

Oh! That explains it. Saying one thing here and something completely different elsewhere is so manly, I agree.

Come to think of it, that phrase reminds me of someone who used to be a regular commenter here. Makes one wonder if you are just another one of the many aliases he now uses to post here while pretending not do so. In that case, Meade's message was delivered and answered. How convenient. All in good fun don't you know.

Ah yes, but the scriptures go onto state unequivocally that all remain in that seperated-from-God state unless they repent - turn away from - their sins and accept what God offers as the only "Way, the Truth, and the Life".

It is good fun. And why is Meade in a tizzy. Plenty of people have taken verbal shots at his wife. Very telling, indeed. Perhaps it hit too close to home, as the photo of his raised pinky might indicate.

I beg to differ. Google for the video where Christopher Hitchens describes Bill Clinton flying back to Arkansas during the campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally-retarded convict, so that he could play the "tough on crime" political game. It will turn you hair white.

See you soon! Using some other alias, perhaps, like so many of those whose apparent absences were being lamented the other night. Who knows, maybe half those doing the lamenting were really those being lamented? All in good fun, naturally! LOL!

You're also willing to measure the benefits that Kennedy brought to countless people through his politics, and give them proper weight on the scales of the man's record. Finally, if you measure his capacity to reform himself, you tip the scales further.

Actually, we all do this to some degree with the ones who are our heroes and mentors.

Which is why demonizing one side or the other is so damning - it undercuts the credibility of the person or group doing the demonizing, because sure as the sun rises every day, sooner or later their hypocrisies will find them out.

I am constantly having to fight this battle with my conservative brethren who forward emails full of invective and over-the-top claims about the evils of Barack Obama and our soon descent into socialism. I decided to start forcefully answering them about a year ago, and basically remind them (sometimes vehemently) that the rightness of the issues is often on our side, and that there is enough to actually engage in instead of the superficial tripe thrown out by right wing extremists that makes money for the screamers. There is far more than enough hypocrisy and obfuscation and misinformation coming at everyone from the left in this country that can be pointed out and engaged than to waste time on crap like birther fantasies or socialist takeovers.

WV: thuzz. The sound made by my alarm clock as it hits the carpet after waking me up.

It was a horrible and tragic night. Kennedy vividly recalled diving 4 times into that icy water, in an increasingly desperate and ultimately futile effort. Drained of his energy and short of breath, Kennedy knew that his hip flask was lost to that watery grave

Politics isn't morality. It isn't pure, it isn't anything but expedience. The sooner people admit that, the sooner they'll see the world for what it is.

People identify emotionally with politicians and politics far too often. That's a bad idea. You aren't a party, you aren't a politician, you are not an ideology. These things have nothing to do with you. Hopefully you vote for people who will make better decisions, but that's all you're voting for. Nothing else.

your choices are a) pretty bad, but on your side on some issues and has a chance of making legislative progress for your side;

Two problems with your analysis.

First, you leave out the choice of finding someone who is decent and can advance you legislative agenda. Is the state of Massachusetts such a barren wasteland for politicians, that you can't find a decent liberal?

Second, you consider the legislative to be the be all and end all. There are no laws about hypocrisy, but there is a cost in public perception and sympathy for your cause when your leaders are hypocrites. You turn one time supporters like Tammy Bruce into opponents.

But, in case you're seriously thinking the Bush accident is the same as Chappaquidick, help me out here. Are you saying that Laura Bush who was 17, had nothing to drink and ran a red light killing her then boyfriend who was in the car she hit but was never ticketed or charged should be treated with the same disdain as 37 year old Ted Kennedy's criminally negligent actions in causing the death and delay of reporting the death of Mary Jo Kopechne?

Let us not forget that the person who retreived Mary Jo's body said that he found her rightside-up in the upside-down car, with her face pushed up into the spot where the last pocket of air would have been. It's possible (although one hopes not) that she died a long and agonizing death of suffocation in her own air space, which would not have happened had he reported the accident. Instead he waited until someone else - a fisherman - spotted the car the next day and reported it, then strolled into the police station, "oh yeah, I guess I did drive my car off the bridge, ha ha."

Yes, totally analogous to Laura Bush's running a stop sign. Men's groups! You are falling down on the job!

I guess if you become powerful enough sexual assault is just a hiccup.

I had no idea about the Kennedy rape case of 1991 until yesterday - it just makes you shake your head in absolute disgust - how many people's lives have been ruined by the Kennedy clan?

Kennedy's legislative efforts are said to have helped the average American more than any other Senator in the last 5 decades - lets take this as a given without even debating about the merits of it - but it still begs the question.. at WHAT COST? how many individuals had to be put through misery for the "common/collective/greater/whatever" good ?

I have zero respect for Massachussets Dim voters. I am beginning to despise these idiots more than I loathe the Red Sox.. wow, how did that happen ?

In her desperate attempt at justification, Eleanor Clift once again shames women and reinforces the gender as the weaker sex.

Women journalists like Clift need to grow a pair. We are not obliged to justify and validate any male politician's bad behavior just because he pushes women's causes. That just makes us insipid drones willing to let the end justify the means because there is a "D" after his name. And here I thought we had come much further than that. All that's changed apparently for women on the left, is they no longer have to wear an apron.

For years, a lot of liberal men have gotten away with treating women as nothing but penis receptacles. They have gotten away with it because they are pro-choice or pro the whole feminist ideology. Are liberal women that desperate that they have to bottom-feed for support of their causes?

NKVD:"Meade must really be hard up for female companionship to spend time with such an emasculating cunt."

LOL. NKVD must be one pussy of a man . He feels emasculated by ... what? Something I've said around here. Meanwhile, numerous men encounter me in person every day and retain their balls. NKVD is one hell of a loser. Who cares what he says? Who is surprised that he slinks over to the He-Man Woman Haters Club to say it...

Kennedy's legislative efforts are said to have helped the average American more than any other Senator in the last 5 decades...

Which is really absurd. He voted for the Great Society that destroyed the family structure for much of our underclass, and hurt Blacks the worst. And, as a result, the jails are filled almost exclusively with men who grew up without fathers, thanks, among others, to Teddy Kennedy. And, yes, I am sure that his staff would have considered that legislation to have helped the average American. But to do so, they would have to limit their review to its intent, instead of looking at its (foreseeable) effects.

Much of the rest of legislative legacy can be viewed in much the same light - great intentions, horrible unintended consequences.

Late in life when his years and health could no longer support heavy drinking and philandering, Ted married again and settled down. This was the most comfortable life open to him at the time. I like the way Eleanor Clift considers this some kind of moral choice and way of making amends. It wasn't. His sedate life was the result of exhaustion and not of moral discipline. Teddy's decisions were based on what would make him happy in the next five minutes. This was another such decision.

Ann Althouse said...NKVD:"Meade must really be hard up for female companionship to spend time with such an emasculating cunt."

LOL. NKVD must be one pussy of a man . He feels emasculated by ... what? Something I've said around here. Meanwhile, numerous men encounter me in person every day and retain their balls. NKVD is one hell of a loser. Who cares what he says? Who is surprised that he slinks over to the He-Man Woman Haters Club to say it...

Ms. Althouse, you need, correction, deserve a better class of troll. Shameless request: can you ban that odious bigot Cedarford? Speaking for myself I would rather read a thousand comments by Titus regarding his loafs and his hogs than one of Cedaford's Neo-Nazi screeds against the Jews and others.

Feminsts are terrible snobs. Mary Jo was "just" a secretary. The sandwich girl in the DC restaurant was "just" a waitress. The countless women Kennedy ran through were never women from big name families.

OK. Now I'm not sure how to interpret Randy's comment about my quote, or maybe I misinterpreted Freeman's use of it?

I think I'm getting lost and confused but there's one thing I DO know, and that is what I, personally, meant when I tweeted the original: "My Thought of the Day: Sometimes being a good sport means not requiring *other* people to be *your* idea of a sport all of the time."

Reader, I offer it with the same meaning you intended when you first wrote it.

To make sure that I am not misunderstood, I'll make it perfectly clear: repeated vicious or lewd attacks on another person, especially a person who is not playing the same game, does not, I think, constitute "busting chops."

Dymphna said...Feminsts are terrible snobs. Mary Jo was "just" a secretary. The sandwich girl in the DC restaurant was "just" a waitress. The countless women Kennedy ran through were never women from big name families.

8/30/09 2:47 PM

Dymphna you are correct. The true measure of someone's character is how they treat a person who cannot help or hurt them. Ted Kennedy reminds me of the French revolutionaries who loved man in the ideal but had no compulsion in executing real men. Ted failed the test. Another would be Vanguard Of the Revolution.

personal: I had no use for E Kennedy and think he should have withdrawn from public life in 1970 (or whenever his term ended) and quietly devoted himself to drinking himself to death like Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas (sans gold-hearted prostitute).

political: But politics is a dirty, brutal business and there is _no_ political faction out there that hasn't had to support (and publicly defend) some pretty unsavory characters, sometimes including those that have sinned against some of one's own constituents.

Pulling out your opponents' bastard and pointing to it as some kind of unique transgression is a baby trick and certainly Mrs. Meade has too much verbal skill to resort to such cheap rhetoric.

I am late to today's party. Yesterday a liberal feminist friend kept referring to Chappaquedic as a murder and not an accident. Upon questioning she told me that she believed that Mary Jo was pregnant and was disposed of on purpose, and her parents had been bought off. Any one have any info? IMO it is true that women have been systematically dissed by powerful men in the educated professions, and that kind of knee jerk thinking is only better hidden today. Maybe there is a hatred for females that is born into powerful men who resent women's superior social skills. So the refusal to speak up when another powerful man abuses a woman for being female in public has nullified the voice of the Feminist Leadership Groups. Hillary is mad for a very good reason; but IMO it will take a Palin to successfully get to the top, because today's liberal politicians seem to be the real haters of women who have become wives and mothers instead of prostitutes.

traditionalguy, I believe the murder bit (beyond negligent homicide) is rumor only. Speculation, more like. Kennedy's behavior the entire evening was so very strange that it is hard to believe there wasn't something else to it, beyond needing to sober up. Clearly, the guy could get away with what he did, so he probably would have gotten away with the lesser crime of drunk driving. But they made sure an autopsy wasn't done, everybody hushed it up, and he doesnt' seem to have been haunted by her death. So, the pregnancy thing is speculation, becuase they never did an autopsy.

... For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous that it cannot be assimilated into the ‘ideals’ that govern the [secular progressive] mind, which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.– Hilton Kramer [paraphrase in brackets is mine]

When I realized that my response came out like I was disagreeing with you, instead of being funny with the wording as intended, I deleted it. I thought I'd caught it soon enough afterwards but I see I didn't. I am truly sorry about causing the misunderstanding.

AJ Lynch said... This is no surprise. Liberals use measured trump cards. At the top of the trump scale is race, then comes gender, then sexual orientation, etc.

For example, on Thursday, the local NAACP was demonstrating before the Eagles game to show support for Michael Vick.

Lynch is correct. The only caveat is that race, gender, class, and sexual orientation may all be discarded if inconvenient for the Left's agenda. All identity politics really is, is a tool it's pushers in Elites don't really believe in.Witness such identity groups savaging any conservative black, gay, female, working class person that gets in their way.The local loud-mouthed nere'dowells of local NAACP chapters, dinosaurs stuck 50 years in the past - may indeed rally to Michael Vick as a black over being a sadistic dog abuser. Because he is a Brother. But let Brother Vick announce he is a Republican and the local blacks will get orders from a top Jew or WASP in the liberal Dem Party ranks to turn him into a pariah......and they will.Blacks are almost as bad as feminists in this regard. Loyal tools of the Left Elites.

====================

As for Kennedy, he isn't the 1st person to accidentally kill someone, and he isn't the 1st politician to make a spectacular, lethal misjudgment while in office. Nothing compared to LBJ decided to expand a war he knew was not winnable and take an additional 130,000 casualties. Not close to Bush's spectacular subversion by the Neocons to commit to paying any price, any loss in lives for "the noble Freedom-loving purple-fingered Iraqi friends of ours".

(His shoe-throwing assailant just had his sentence commuted to time served, released to a cheering mob of thousands of Iraqis, attended by beaming Iraqi officials, denouncing Bush, his Zionist Masters, the West).

Those that say "tell it to the parents!!!! of the person Laura Bush/Teddy Kennedy/some hunter 40 years ago accidentally killed" are just pushing their own agenda. They could care less about the people they pretend to champion. The relatives forgave, or were bought off like the Kopechnes to never say a bad word in return for a nice amount of money..

Let me just add: Women (and actually just about anyone) might support Kennedy because the alternative is woeful in the extreme. Who ran as a Republican against Kennedy, and what did he or she offer as an alternative? Anything good?

Cedarford - You're being willfully stupid. The issue with Teddy wasn't that he got into an accident and someone died. The issue is that he left the scene of the accident, went to his hotel room, slept off his hangover, chatted up some other guests the next morning and NEVER TOLD ANYONE THAT THERE WAS SOMEONE TRAPPED IN HIS FUCKING CAR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RIVER.

Why do the Chappaquiddick apologists always resort to this act of mass mind-reading slander? No one sincerely cares about the horrible death Ms. Kopechne endured, is that it? It's just all politics, an unfair swiftboating of your hero.

Cedarford, I think you're projecting. You can say things like this because people are an abstraction to you, a talking point to use against your adversaries. Like here...

Nothing compared to LBJ decided to expand a war he knew was not winnable and take an additional 130,000 casualties. Not close to Bush's spectacular subversion by the Neocons to commit to paying any price, any loss in lives for "the noble Freedom-loving purple-fingered Iraqi friends of ours".

Well, by that logic, why should any murderer be in prison? You're basically saying that, what, Kopechne's death should be overlooked because of some strange moral equivalence with LBJ or W, in which Kennedy comes out way ahead because he just killed one? How far are you willing to go with that logic. If he'd killed her with a gun, your statement would still have to apply, wouldn't it?

It's all politicized rationalization. Get your head out of your ass and deal with the reality of what Teddy did. He's lucky he didn't spend 10 years in prison for manslaughter, which is what would've happened to you or me. It's entirely due to his privileged status that he not only avoided any consequences whatsoever for letting an innocent person drown, but he was allowed to continue his political career to a point where he was a viable presidential candidate 10 years later, and, fair to say, a brilliant and accomplished senator. Look at this squarely and think about what it means. Don't avert your eyes with these bullshit rationalizations. On your worst day, you have never been as selfish as Kennedy was during that episode -- letting a girl drown in a desperate attempt to evade responsibility and damage to his career. Stop protecting yourself and your fellow cocooners from absorbing that truth when contemplating the whole of Kennedy's record.

Let me just add: Women (and actually just about anyone) might support Kennedy because the alternative is woeful in the extreme. Who ran as a Republican against Kennedy, and what did he or she offer as an alternative? Anything good?

Were there none but Republicans available to run in the Democratic primaries?